This story is impossible to rate. Two huge problems prevent a proper evaluation: first, the BBC is not the impartial, professional and accurate source it should be -- a fact that was very recently admitted by the BBC itself. There is a long and disgraceful history here, replete with hubris and an elitist mindset that extends beyond political reporting. The BBC is accustomed to crafting, not reporting, the truth. Second, who among us is qualified to understand this research, or even grasp the nature of it from this cursory article? -- Years ago I read a comprehensible and credible-appearing report in TIME on astronomical research done at Caltech, and found myself chatting with a Caltech astronomy professor only days later. His ... More »

The facts are there, or so it seems, but the "angle" is typical of the newspaper: the problem is stated in the headline, which begins with "FDA." It is, according to the reporter, the FDA's fault that China and India are getting away with corrupt, unprincipled trade practices. The WaPo's lunatic solution is to increase US taxes to pay the costs of doing for China and India the routine things those nations refuse to do. -- It's grisly: taxing the US citizenry to clean up the criminally irresponsible foreign drug industry is just a subsidy of greedy, unprincipled Asian manufacturers. Worse, it will never result in genuine reform and reliability. As soon as the inspectors leave, the criminals will be right back at it. That's the ... More »

This weblog post publicizes an under-reported story; it is less a report than an example of the informed discussion found in weblogs. -- Of course the post is also advocacy, which is acceptable but may set off alarm bells. I note, for example, the unquestioned inclusion of Miller's allegation that "'...three of our community's big forces -- the community's majority religion, the richest guys in town, and the conservative machine that controls Idaho,' tried to punish the paper...." Some would say that is a very broad bush indeed, and, given the paper's subsequent ratings climb, even contradicts the facts. Further, missing in Miller's account, if this weblog post is to be believed, is insight into the paedophiles' secretive ... More »

Don't trust this post. The author implies that scientific journals have political agendas, and utterly fails to prove his point.. Science editors are said to release stories to coincide with other events so as to affect deliberations in Congress, and so on. This is conspiracist speculation. It ignores the fact that it is the major media who actually decide which new scientific developments are widely reported. In fact, there is no conspriracy involved here, even though the major media do have a monochromatic look; editors know what science news is "hot" and what is "cold." The big media have their biases and they do "spike" stories, but in this case, it is much more a matter of knowing what the public considers interesting in ... More »

If I had written this article, I would have dealt with the Civil War at length, and thereby lost a lot of readers after the second paragraph. Hanson's approach is better. He's trying to provide some relevant historical perspective. His optimism is not Pollyanna off her leash, but realistic expectations. -- Yes, Hanson can be a bit of shock to the system, as he's not a Doomster like Paul Ehrlich (remember the Global Famine man?) or one of those "experts" who told us thirty-five or forty years ago killer glaciers were on the way. That makes him alien to many readers; after all, why is this guy bothering us, if he has no bad news? But don't ignore him because he brings unwelcome reminders of past triumphs over dire prophesies, and ... More »

The editorial fails to deal with the fundamental issue: immigration as such. Instead it looks narrowly at this legislation, utters a few glittering generalizations about the welfare of pathetic immigrants, and ignores many of the bill's inevitable implications. -- The basics of immigration begin with this apolitical video, which everyone, hard-line conservative or raging liberal, should see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069 Once this information is grasped, the NYT editorial looks puny indeed. -- "Know-nothing" IS an insult; those people were bigots and conspiracist lunatics. The editorial writer intended to insult his despised targets. -- Trouble ahead: note that recent polls tell us that Congress, ... More »

This post is a quick review of the status of the bill; it does not come from or endorse the Border Patrol's view of the legislation -- rather the weblogger simply notes that the Border Patrol, among others, is not happy with the bill. That's a fact, and reporting it does not indicate bias. -- For decades, the BP has been tremendously understaffed, and therefore unable to carry out its mandate. It is incorrect and unfair to assert that the BP's desire to do as instructed is selfish and greedy. You don't ask a surgeon to operate, and then scold him when he demands everything he needs to accomodate you. -- IMO the weblogger's overall point is that this legislation is dangerous to all who crafted it because it is a compromise ... More »

Said's book is one of the most influential commentaries of the 20th century. Its influence on the academy has been overwhelming; it serves as the primary prop for politically correct views of the history, politics and cultures of the Middle East, as well as the claimed contemporary imperialist/colonialist bigotry and depredations of the West. Yet as many have pointed out, the book contains many dubious concepts and errors of fact. The result is a divide in the scholarly world that some argue is ideological rather than based in a genuine search for truth. The essay under review is a gracefully written attempt to shed light on just one aspect of Said's contentions. As Valiunas makes clear, Said grossly misrepresented Western ... More »

The weblogger asks whether anyone can recall an instance when the DOJ told a president that his intended policy was illegal, and the president ignored that opinion. Something much more blatant did occur. Pres. Jackson reacted to a decision of the federal supreme court with the words, "John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it." Presidential rejection of not just legal opinion, but of completed jurisprudential process, is precedented. So...what?? Does that justify anything? If it doesn't, why bring the question up, except as innuendo ("See, Bush is uniquely evil")?? May a president tell his cabinet, "Your opinions are wrong," and order the officials who work for him to stand down? -- It appears that Bush was willing ... More »

1. The story never tells us how many kWh of electricity can be generated at peak operating speed (I suppose that means highest winds). It just says that one windmill = 650 homes. 2. The story never gives us any way to compare a coal- or gas-fired plant with these 200 windmills. What is the range of sizes of power plants serving Delaware? We are not told. What size plant would the state like to build, if permitted to build a new coal- or gas-fired generating plant of whatever size? 3. We do not learn what statistics have been gathered regarding the winds off the coast of Delaware. 4. The story tells us nothing about how Delaware plans to use power the windmills will generate. Will it be dumped into the grid, regardless of ... More »